Re: Tip for GPS users


tdp1001@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1161656507.655398.260850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tom Potter wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1161592747.645827.178900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

tdp1...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
[...]

As a guy who sold several kinds of accelerometers
back in the 1960's, and attended seminars on the subject,

So?

That makes you a salesman, not a physicist.

Thank you!

Nothing happens until somebody sells something.

That may be so, but my point is that just because you sold stuff and
attended a few talks about the stuff you sold, does not mean that you
actually have a complete understanding of the stuff.

However, you being a salesman does explain your curious dislike of
general relativity. Since there are a lot less down-to-earth
applications for GR as opposed to SR/QM/Newton, you percieve GR as
being useless.

Rejecting a certain theory just because it isn't directly influencing
your life right this second is incredibly short-sighted. Just because
you don't see a direct down to earth use for GR right this second does
not mean there will not be one down the road.

"Eric Gisse" makes a good point.
I do not "actually have a complete understanding of "
General Relativity and Astrology.

I do know that
the ultimate measure of the relationship between cause and effect
is the auto-correlation between the assumed causes and the assumed effects.

Models and theories are mnemonics
used to expand and extrapolate ONE cross-correlation
(Tests of Einstein's general theory of relativity
did not provide an experimental foundation for the theory
until well after it was introduced in 1915.
Physicists accepted the theory
because it correctly accounted for
the precession of the perihelion of Mercury..)
or a set of correlations.

Actually it took longer than that, but close enough.

All models are limited in their applications.
For example, have you ever seen GTR used to model
DNA, ionization potentials, electronegativity, to build a bridge,
to design an electrical or electronic system, a semiconductor,
or an information compressor (JPG, ZIP, etc.), etc.?

No, because GR isn't a theory that deals with microscopic interactions
of particles nor is it a theory of computer science. Demanding it to be
as such is a foolish venture.

And as GTR is "continuous"
whereas reality consists of "discrete" events,
it cannot be the end all,
nor a look into the "mind of God".

Of course it isn't. Never said it was.

You are talking to me, not about me. ***.

Imagine someone responding to a question or comment of *yours* with an
essay - like you do. Every time.


I am pleased to see that Eric Gisse
does not agree with Einstein on this point.

Accepting GR does not entail accepting Einstein's philosophical,
religious or political views.

Like too many cranks on this newsgroup, you seem incapable of
decoupling Einstein from GR. Yes, Einstein made GR but GR exists
independantly of Einstein.


It appears that our deprogramming is working.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9508/davies.html
"Einstein once said that the thing that most interested him
is whether God had any choice in His creation."


http://www.gozillago.net/prose/Einstein.html
"Einstein is reported in a well-known story
to have said of his physics career, that everything he had done,
he had done in an effort to know the mind of God."


I don't really care because I have heard it before.

Einstein's metaphysical and philosophical musings are interesting in
their own right, but are irrelevant for understanding GR.


I am also pleased to see that Eric Gisse
recognizes that it is a "foolish venture"
to try to use GTR for modeling practical
and that it is best suited for modeling time travel,
warping through space, gravitons,
rubber times and space, and realities beyond
man's capacity to ever know.

No, crackpotter, I don't 'recognize' anything of the sort.

You have yet to provide an empirical disproof of general relativity.
All you can do is assert that GR has no practical interest while
completely ignoring GPS, accurate placement of satellites, and accurate
timekeeping.



It is sad that the welfare mothers who hype GTR
are not forced to provide a payoff to society
for the billions of dollars that has gone into
just proving GTR for racial and religious reasons,
and to con taxpayers out of their money..

What "welfare mothers"?

Are these mythical "welfare mothers" like the mythical "13 hacks of
general relativity", that when pressed upon for details, you ignore the
question?


--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com

.

Quantcast